Amid growing rancor between the Catholic hierarchy and the White House, Republican rising star Sen. Marco Rubio is pushing a bill that takes a swipe at the Obama administration’s stance on expanding access to birth control.

Nice lead, Politico. “Expanding access to birth control” sounds quite a bit better than the reality, which is forcing religious organizations to provide services that go against their beliefs. But writing that would highlight what Obama is trying to do. Can’t have that.

The Florida senator, widely considered on the short list for the GOP vice presidential pick, introduced legislationTuesday that would vastly expand the ability of religious or faith-based employers to opt out of a health reform law requirement that health plans cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without any co-pay.

Note Rubio’s possible political motive despite the fact that he is a Christian social conservative, but omit the administration’s obvious political motive to mollify the NOW and NARAL gang. Politico is outdoing itself here.

The administration had offered a narrow exemption to religious organizations, which the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops said was unacceptable. They were not mollified when the administration gave other religious group, such as a religiously affiliated hospitals or charities, an extra year — until August 2013 — to comply with the requirement.

Giving them an extra year doesn’t fundamentally change what the administration is forcing them to do. It’s just political procrastination.

Rubio’s bill would allow individuals to take a conscience exemption and not offer the benefit to workers. The administration has defined access to birth control as a basic preventive health service that should be available.

At taxpayer expense, too, with no co-pays. Since declaring that he would bypass Congress, President Obama has gone out of his way to pick fights over fundamental things — the advise and consent role of Congress in appointments, religious freedom, the rule of law regarding immigration. He needs to be called out by those who can force him to defend his actions. We need to hear more from the Republican presidential candidates on this.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Click here to view the 9 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

9 Comments, 6 Threads

1.
Flaming Liberal

Wow good fight. I wonder how mittens will explain how what he did (which was the very same thing when he was Gov of MA) is different that what Obama is doing. Obama couldn’t ask for a better fight to show that Mittens is a good moderate governor. LOL

History has shown that people take it “very well” when you push them against the wall of religious conviction for basically little reason. Democrats may want to realize that, being as how Catholic voters often going their way. Their counter-reaction is going to be peaceful–but intensely felt, none the less, and I doubt they will be cheerfully coming back to the Democratic fold for a long time, if ever.

Which should remind us–there is a kind of tyrant who routinely overreaches and tries to achieve the next goal before he gets the last one fully secured, making enemies of those allies and neutrals who would have contentedly and patiently waited to be devoured, except for his own stupidity.

The following is not a flawless example by any means, but hopefully drives the point home nonetheless.

Since we are going to enshrine in stone the idea that a worker must be granted by his employer what a certain critical mass of workers elsewhere could get, even if they are not in line with the fundamental thrust or emphasis of that organization; and furthermore since we know that the rule of law must be blind and apply equally to all, then I have no problems in fully expecting that the Obama Administration will as fully support a white man who wishes to work at a NAACP office and yet still get Confederate Memorial Day off (in those states where it is still a recognized state holiday) as a non-Catholic who chooses to go to work for a Catholic organization and expects them to hand out birth control pills. Because the law must be blind.

Good job, Sen. Rubio.
Although I’m really spoiling for a fight on this one, wanting it to blow up in the Administration’s face and end up in the Supreme Court, I’m truly and sincerely afraid of what this could do the institutions I donate much of my time and money to.

Here is a link for those interested in preserving the conscience clause and religious freedom in the US to write their congressmen. It is through the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292
Even for non-religious people, the overreach here ought to be profoundly alarming.

How does he hope to win? All the democratic votes and most swingers(independents)?

Mitt is no conservative. Damn, it’s another hold-my-nose year.

But I’m going to work to primary both my (R) senators. Told them I would. SOPA/PIPA was the last time I tried the nice letter-writing thing. We will rid ourselves of the country-club pubs, yes we will.